Talk:Warez

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Warez article

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them a ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Proposed NPOV (lol) changes to the "motivations" part :

Motivations

Unlike the pirated DVD/CD manufacturers and street vendors, cracking groups claim they gain no monetary profit from their actions. The stated motivation of these groups varies. Warez groups are competitive amongst each other, and a fast warez release is viewed as a social accomplishment.

Other motivating factors given by cracking groups include :

a) They see the morality of copyright infringement as much more disputed than that of conventional property theft, and members of warez groups often view their actions as socially positive.

b) The alleged impossibility of copyright enforcement.

c) The perceived injustice of not sharing information with those who could not afford to obtain it otherwise (and thereby comparing themselves to Robin Hood).

d) They also claim that a warez release may actually increase the value of software through the network effect.

e) Finally, laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may also contribute to the motivations of those involved in warez, as user rights are, according to their view, increasingly threatened in the United States, and rights holders attempt to lock out consumers.

People opposed to warez typically argue that the motivating factors given by cracking groups are not authentic

a) They claim the morality of copyright infringement is not disputed in the legal community, or in mainstream society.

b) They typically justify enforcing copyright for the same reasons that laws against picking car locks are enforced.

c) They argue that "could not afford" typically disregards the concept of saving money.

d) Thought they might not disagree that there is a network effect, they argue that the value of this is neglible compared to the legitimizing of a minority enforcing its own views outside the normal democratic channels.

e) Warez opponents would argue that as long as cracking groups are participants in a democratic society it is not for them to violate laws at will. They would further argue that cracking and warez has no relation to civil disobedience, which is often considered legitimate.

?

- 80.202.111.88 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This article strikes me as pretty biased as it stands. The way in which it is biased is somewhat subtle, or at least somewhat difficult to explain, and it's a kind of bias I think Wikipedians need to be on the lookout for.

Warez groups are, not to put it nicely, criminal. Moreover, this is obvious to everyone except those who are morally or otherwise opposed to proprietary software, which would be 99% of the population that uses any software at all. When I say this, it appears to be with the intent of wanting to make you disrespect what script kiddies do; and while many people will recognize that script kiddies are literally criminals, they wouldn't want actually to say so. The present article, on the other hand, has the opposite approach: it simply reports that warez is "copyrighted software which is traded freely, in violation of the copyright license." What does it mean to trade copyrighted materials freely? Does it mean pretending that they're free, or treating them as if they were free? It means, for example, stealing the bookkeeping software that your mother paid $50 for, from a company that hires bunches of programmers who have families to support. Moreover, to represent the ordinary reaction to the notion of "warez" adequately, the article should, fairly early on, make it clear that pirated software is distributed by only a small minority of software users, and that many (probably most) people in at least most of the Western world would have moral objections to this. Perhaps some light could be shed on the moral views (or lack thereof) of the warez kiddies, too.

Instead, the article complains in the second paragraph that "the deliberate circumvention of software copyright protection" was outlawed in the U.S., as if copying copyrighted software was not illegal in the first place and as if that were not the issue that law-abiding and rights-respecting people would care about. By highlighting the fact this early on in the article, that warez tools are outlawed in the U.S., the article conveys the impression (to me, and I doubt I'm unique in this) that the authors of the article have some sympathy for those who use such tools to crack copyrighted software.

This becomes all the more clear in the next paragraph:

Also known as warez d00dz. Members of warez groups are generally male high-school or undergraduate students who go by aggressive handles, and may be referred to derogatorily as warez kiddies. (See script kiddies.)

Who calls them "warez d00dz" other than the "warez d00dz" themselves? The moniker should be attributed. And what is an "aggressive handle"? I would instead write: "Members of warez groups call themselves 'warez d00dz' (i.e., with '0' in place of 'o'), while their detractors refer to them to derogatorily as "warez kiddies." Members of warez groups are generally male high-school or undergraduate students who go by nicknames ("handles") such as [examples of "aggressive handles"]." For me, there's an immediate difference I hope you can see too: we do not espouse the terminology of people that we, as fully responsible adults, might consider to be silly adolescent hoodlums. I'd add the parenthetical remark, by the way, in order to distance the authors of the article from silly adolescent orthography.

0-day warez is released the same day as the commercial release, and is a mark of accomplishment within the community.

Oh, isn't that nice--Wikipedia recognizes that warez groups constitute communities (I'd use the word "group," which is more neutral and less approving--but not disapproving, either). And Wikipedia officially cares that infringing copyright is "a mark of accomplishment" according to this "community." Isn't that nice. I would write instead: "Warez groups dub '0-day warez' any copyrighted materials illegally distributed by warez groups on the same day as the commercial release. Warez groups regard this as a mark of accomplishment."

Negative-day warez (that is, works released by warez groups before commercial release) are even more impressive but (as of 2001) becoming somewhat commonplace in the field of motion pictures.

Similar remarks and revisions would apply. "Even more impressive"! Oh, I'm so impressed!

Another funny thing about the above is the faux formalism involved: "becoming somewhat commonplace in the field of motion pictures." By describing warez kiddies' behavior in this formal sort of way (which is bad writing style in any case), the reader is distanced from the full meaning of what the warez kiddies do.

I might write instead: "Warez groups dub "negative-day warez" any works--software and software-encoded media--that are distributed illegally by warez groups before their commercial release. Increasingly as of 2001, software hacking techniques are applied to digitally-released films obtained before their release in theaters. For example, in [date], [film name] was distributed on the [name] warez network [n] days before it was released on theaters. Warez groups are even more impressed by this 'negative-day warez' [note the scare quotes--very important] than by 'zero-day warez'."

The following, added as an afterthought to the end of the present article, strikes me as bizarre:

Software piracy

Warez are considered "software piracy" by business and government officials.

How did the authors managed to convince themselves that the reader would be sympathetic to their views, so much so that they would buy the notion that only business and government officials are worth mention as regarding "warez" as "software piracy"? So, nobody else regards it that way either? And notice the scare quotes around "software piracy." And notice that this is at the end of the article. Oy.

Not only should the more common view of warez--which is not, fantasy notwithstanding, just the view of business and government officials--be fully represented, indeed it should have more "air time" than the hacker view, because it is indeed the more common view!

Moreover, I think there should be mention of the moral views associated with warez groups and with copyright holders and others opposed to them (including the ordinary decent people who see nothing wrong with actually spending money for software--i.e., most of us). That might seem uncool to script kiddies, but y'know, we are or should be trying to act like adults on Wikipedia. So I think some mention should be made of the fact that what warez groups do is, on the view of the vast but silent majority, morally wrong. (Of course, they love being called morally wrong, but no matter...)

Why didn't I just fix the article? Because this article as it stands illustrates very well a not-uncommon twist on the standard bias problem, and I'd like to let it sit up there as an example of how not to write an unbiased article. I'll fix it later, in light of any comments.

--Larry Sanger

I agree that the article is biased. But your characterization as "criminal" is not completely neutral either, in light of the fact that software has only been protected under copyright since 1980, and copying software without profit motive has only been a crime since 1997 in the US (and is not a crime in most other countries). In most countries (and in most cases in the US), copyright infringement is not a crime but an actionable civil matter between copyright holder and infringer.

See http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/03ipma.htm#III.A.

AxelBoldt

---

Why is it that when I state my opinions in talk pages, people sometimes accuse me of being biased? It's very strange. Talk page discussions needn't be unbiased. Articles are supposed to be unbiased. I can be as biased as I like on talk pages.

I don't know why people sometimes accuse you of being biased; I preemptively pointed out an imprecise use of the word "criminal" because you said you were planning to rewrite the article. AxelBoldt

I really don't care what the recent changes to the laws are. I admit I was using the word "criminal" too loosely to avoid confusion (or pedantic responses :-) ). If someone were to publish and sell copies of some profitable novel to the detriment of the profits of the legitimate publisher, I'd consider that stealing and hence criminal behavior, regardless of whether the applicable law was criminal law or not. The fact that the issue would have to be settled in civil court rather than criminal court doesn't matter to me, or not to the point I was making anyway. Stealing is stealing. And if you disagree with this philosophical point, that's your prerogative. (Obviously, I'm not a legal positivist.) --Larry Sanger

I'm going to disagree with you here. Stealing is stealing, and stealing is illegal and copyright infringement is illegal, but copyright infringement is not stealing. You're not depriving the original copyright owner of his property when you pirate software. You're (insert: possibly --67.68.10.3 14:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)) depriving them of the opportunity to make money by duplicating the expression of their work and selling it at the price of their choosing. Copyright expires, property rights don't. The laws legislating both are entirely different. Do you also consider patent infringement theft? Whilst the original article, as you said, was biased, but I believe that you are drawing too broad an analogy between two seperate crimes.

In any case, the discussion of software piracy shouldn't be on this page anyway. It should be on a page entitled "software piracy", as "warez" consists of only a fraction of the pirated media out there. In my view this article should be restricted to discussion the "warez" groups, their methods, and their justifications, with the more general issues dealt with elsewhere. --Robert Merkel

But warez, as opposed to other pirated software, is distributed for free without profite motive, which raises interesting legal and moral issues. AxelBoldt

The example "If someone were to publish and sell copies of some profitable novel" does not seem to be relevant since the very definition of warez implies distribution for free. I think the distinction between criminal and civil court is important: it can mean the difference between 3 years in a federal penitentiary compared to mere monetary damages (which one can always get out of by declaring bankruptcy). AxelBoldt

--

I think the term pirate is misleading (do software pirates rape and pillage?) and pejorative when refering to copyright infrindgers. It is more accurate and neutral, in my opinion, to refer to them as copyright infrindgers since that is exactly what they are. The article can of course make mention of the fact that some people call them pirates, and also mention, as I have already put, that this word game is a thinly veiled attempt for business to cast the free flow of information conversation in their favor. --ShaunMacPherson 14:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The term "warez d00dz" is probably a pejorative invented by Eric_S._Raymond for the jargon_file. It should probably be dropped, it's rather infantile.

• Do you have any evidence to back up such a prepostorous claim, Mr. Anonymous? Didn't think so. Radman1 01:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of warez groups

Someone just removed the list of warez groups, posting no comment or explanation. I'm inclined to put them back in, as there hasn't been any discussion and the list links to other Wikipedia articles or interest.

• I have restored the warez groups subsection which were censored by an anonymous user. If someone has a gripe they can bring it to the Talk page first. -- Radman1

There was a sub-stub with a short list of warez groups. I have changed it to a redirect to this article. However, four groups are not in the main article. Please check whether there are really groups and add them. Thanks.

• Myth
• CLASS
• RELOADED
• Hoodloom

--Edcolins 11:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

The list has been reintroduced as List of warez groups and is no longer a sub-stub. Check it out. —RaD Man (talk) 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Piracy?

suppose somone is doing it in a country with little or no software laws or in international waters nothing illegal about it when you're in those places Dudtz 8/18/05 5:32 PM EST

Warez helps Microsoft?

The claim that warez actually helps major software companies is unsourced and of dubious merit. Without credible evidence, it can serve no purpose other than to justify illegal activity, and should be removed. Beaker342

Criticism on Alkivar

Seeing this article undergoing a lot of changes suddenly (on about 14 September 2005), I'm very angry to see one guy named Alkivar distorting and controlling information which he likes to listen only in the "Warez" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez) article. The following are what he did:

1. Arbitrarily delete others additions/contributions at will without reasons
2. Arbitrarily destroy/remove links to terms at will without reasons
3. Arbitrarily delete arguments which don't suit his tastes without reasons (too many situations! Eg: Movie Piracy)
4. Rewrite others work. (What he did was to change the wording of some statements to his liking, or simply rewrote the whole paragraph with his own liking word, without adding any new contents! What's the point of doing all these?)
5. Distort others work (Since he discarded parts of information once in a while, it distorted the meaning of the whole statement or claim)
6. Create many unnecessary edits (What's the real purpose of making more than 40 edits in one day! Why not just group all changes and edit once?)
7. Suddenly edit a page many times at a short while (What's the real purpose of editing more than 10 times within about 20 minutes?)
8. Leaving rude comments (eg "this is not written for a 14yr old..")

(I may be wrong, so you'd better see "history" to witness his acts!)

I'm so sorry to say Alkivar does little to the article (although he had some contributions, his arbitrary manner and disrespect of others' work aren't tolerated. He'd better spend time to enrich the contents, rather than "cleaning" and "re-organising" the article! A Wiki's article is people's article, not your article! Anyway, I may be wrong in interpreting the philosophy of Wiki and it is in fact ok to delete others' contributions. -- Someone, 14 September 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.78.78.229 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Things are quite busy here at the moment, but at Alkivar's request I have judiciously reviewed the article history and have overall found his edits to be beneficial to this article. Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines in place regarding how to edit, and from what I can see he is working within that framework. If you do not mind, please cite specific diffs for peer review if you disagree with one or more of this changes. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I also found Alkivar's edits to be a dramatic improvement. —Cryptic (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

My reply to "Someone"

There is one rule at wikipedia which is placed above all others...

• If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Now let me address your comments one at a time:

1,4,5) I have not arbitrarily deleted or distorted anything, I have rewritten this article to a consistant NPOV and to make the prose somewhat more consise, I have also attempted to fix the broken english which was added by a non native english speaker.

2) Policy states there is such a thing as too many wikilinks. For example one paragraph had 9, I repeat NINE wikilinks to the word computer this is rediculously excessive. Any other links were changes so as to redirect them to the CORRECT ARTICLE this is known as disambiguation, something you should be appreciating not being upset about.

3) I have not and will never "Arbitrarily delete arguments" you will note any and all arguments that were in other sections have been MOVED to the ARGUMENTS subsection, the data is STILL THERE!

6,7) "Create many unncessary edits" well shucks I didnt know minor editing was a problem! oh wait thats a perfectly legitimate editing style! Look I can edit a little at a time or edit all at once... there is no "right way" to edit on wikipedia. As for editing many times in a short while, you'll notice most of these edits were to correct slight mistakes in the way my previous editing was displayed (margin goofs and image wrapping does not always show in a preview).

8) "Leaving rude comments" if users would submit content in english the form that is acceptable for an encyclopedia, not headings written in "L33t" it wouldnt be an issue. Yes I was rude, I'm sorry, but please write in english.

As for "doing little" to the article? please go double check this articles history, I have basically written 60% of this article, and the entire Movie Piracy section was originated by me. Not to mention EVERY SINGLE IMAGE was added and CREATED by me.

As for "He'd better spend time to enrich the contents, rather than "cleaning" and "re-organising" the article!" are you freaking kidding me?!?!?! Some of the most important work done on this encyclopedia is to clean up and reorganize data so as to make it more readable.

Look dude I have no problem with you adding content to this article, but when most of your contribution is to add content from wikilinked articles into this one, and to add empty subheadings... I don't see this as beneficial, but merely as more data that needs to be trimmed and reorganized.  ALKIVAR™ 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bittorrent vs. other P2P

It is a common claim that BT introduced uploading while still downloading, but this functionality has been in P2P protocols for long. For example, Edonkey does share incomplete files still in progress and maybe even Kazaa supports this (not sure about that though). While Bittorrent has given a catchy name for the media to use and indeed does some things better than the predecessors, it shouldn't be thought being the only thing making high-volume sharing possible.

And, it should be noted that it is indeed the different communities that non-global network creates (i.e. you can't just search for files as it is with Edonkey etc.) that act as a catalyst, compared just to the technology aspect. If you want to plunge deeper into this Bittorrent subject that is.

On Topic

Most of the recent edits to this article have strayed far, far, FAR from the topic - Warez.

This is not a page for BSA press releases. This is not the counterfeiting page or the copyright infringement page. The Pro/Con arguments are a great place for your biases, otherwise, lets have this article be informational only. Saying that the BSA started an antipiracy campaign in 1992 has little to do with warez since said campaign targeted counterfeitting. These activities are only mildly linked and don't justify multiple paragraphs of explanation.

Warez is the modification of software to remove copy prevention features and/or the distribution of commercial software and shareware/webware in an electronic format (remember, not all software is protected). It also includes media formats such as MP3, XVID, VCD, SVCD, etc.

Criticism on Alkivar - One More Chiming In!

Alkivar's revisions seem to be posting an agenda (piracy is bad, mkay!) rather than being useful or informative. Most of his revisions have little to do with warez, and pretain to counterfitting etc. Also, it seems through his numerous edits he is slowy trying to shift the focus of the page from information to campaigning against warez... and frankly I don't care if that's your agenda, just don't do it on a Wikipedia page that is heavily referenced by traditional and online media.

Information on this page should be informational imo, and recently it hasn't been.

LOL anti-warez me ... LOL thats the biggest joke ever ... for fucks sake i was in the scene for 15 years! go read ... United Cracking Force Apocalypse Production Crew. As for being anti-warez ... its called NPOV ... we need to include both sides not make the whole article \/\/4r3Z 1Z /<~R4|) l337 /\/\4/\/!!!!1  ALKIVAR™ 04:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar - Whatever claims you make (and your attitude here is showing something about you), I could care less. This is a page that I have referenced in a research paper, and that has been quoted extensively in mainstream press, however your recent edits have drastically changed the page for the worse. You edits are FAR from NPOV, most of them have little relation to the scene. Street vendors may pick up some of their content from the net, but they are not "part of the warez scene." The previous image was far better suited. The page is now even heavier on the media aspect, which is only a recent development compared to the software side, and you lack a true history of warez, instead focusing on BSA campaigns etc. Both sides are presented in the Pro/Con section yet you have clearly and consistantly altered the introduction, changing it from an informational intro to a heavily slanted press-release that sounds like BSA spin-doctoring. For example: The term "warez" has NOTHING to do with "a contraction of warehouses", that sentence has been included IMO merely to make a connection between counterfeitting and the warez scene. This is a blantantly false statement - the term warez has always stood for "Software" with the traditional "leet speak" Z tossed in. Judging from you little attempt at humor based on my serious concerns, I guess you know what "leet" speak is, but those of us who use this page for research do not look upon your attitude favorably.

I'll be more than happy to contact a mod for you and take this issue to moderation if you so desire.

Contradiction in Info

I seriously wonder if people even read what they write. For example:

"The term generally refers to releases by organized groups, as opposed to peer-to-peer file sharing between friends or large groups of people with similar interest using a Darknet."

After virtually excluding P2P from the definition of warez by saying it refers to organized groups, the author(s) then add a section on Bit Torrent in the rise of piracy section. Now, the terms piracy and warez have become muddled due to certain people's edits, but considering the relatively short existence of BT, it seems extremely odd to include it in this section... but then, the history of warez section fails to mention to origins of warez (Copy parties, Mail Trading, C64/Amiga scene, links to demo scene, etc) so that's to be expected I suppose.

List of Biased Additions from Alkivar

- These will be brought before mods if the changes continue... these are blatantly false and/or biased statements: - - - "warez" is not a contraction of warehouses. This definition is not found in any online reference. It is not accepted in the online community. In the excellent research into warez communities by Marquette Universities Eric Goldman, it is not mentioned once. I doubt Alkivar has even done his homework on this issue. - - - Section mentioning the legality of backup copies in some nations was deleted/changed, only to say that some nations have "loopholes." Such laws, in some nations, i.e. Canada, are not loopholes, but intentional, written legislation. The Fair Dealings act is the perfect example. This is NOT the same as the loophole which allows P2P usage, and it is important to include both. - - - The history of warez section has almost no relation to warez at this point. There needs to be a clear distinction between "warez" and traditional copyright infringement. This aspect is sorely lacking. Areas pretaining to "for-profit" piracy, which were present in past months, have been removed completely. - - - The effect on open-source lacks almost any connection to warez. Open Source products are generally not distributed by warez groups unless created by said groups. A good reference for REAL DOCUMENTED cases in open source infringement, GPL-VIOLATIONS.ORG, was deleted by Alkivar for no apparent reason. Why delete a valid source? And then replace it with opinionated terms like "evil acts?" - - - Edits to pro side - the term "steal" software is legally incorrect in most nations. The common, acceptable term is "infringe". Given the nature of this page, if someone isn't aware of this, they lack the basic ability to accurately comment on the topic. - - Regardless of whether Alkivar is pro or con, his edits have only detracted from the quality of this page.

Note on Fake Edits by Alkivar

Would some mod PLEASE look into this user's trolling. The previous section - serious problems with his edits - were deleted by him as a "personal attack." This has become a joke - user Alkivar has turned this page into a disgrace. The page now features heavy bias, inaccurate facts, and he's willfully deleting valid comments and criticism from the discussion page to suppress opposing views.

Please sign what you write and edit to correct what you think is wrong with the article as it is.. Alkivar has mostly added positive reflect towards the article, which is more than some anonymous troll that destroys the current layout does.

S33k3r 00:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation - really?!

Is it seriously pronounced [warɛs]? By whom? I, like everyone I've ever known who actually uses the word, have always pronounced it [wɛəz], just like "wares"... :/

— Haeleth Talk 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not add it, but both pronunciations are in common use, many of my friends use the "where-eS" *rolls eyes*  ALKIVAR™ 14:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

FOLDOC and Jargon File agree with me; I already edited the main page to remove the pronunciation given there, but based on your testimony I'm about to add the other pronunciation back in as an alternative. — Haeleth Talk 14:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Already did that as you were reverting... dont bother now :)  ALKIVAR™ 14:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Street pirate != Warez d00d

The accompanying photograph does not go with this article. Warez d00dz don't pirate for money, or work with physical copies.

English Computer Misuse Act

The section on the English Computer Misuse Act is completely, utterly wrong. This law protects computer users from unauthorized access to the data on their own computers, treating the owner of the computer as the owner of the data. Thus, it criminalizes attacks on other people's computers. It has nothing to do with protecting copyright-holders from unauthorized access performed by a user on his own computer. Therefore, the example of the music CD is right off-target. Indeed, the CMA probably affords protection in the opposite direction --- Sony's CD rootkit DRM could well be illegal under the CMA. Flagboy 15:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

3(1) A person is guilty of an offence if

a) he does any act which causes the unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer;

So, if data is loaded on to a compiter in read-only format, a crack modifies the content and constitutes the offence. What is the legal problem with that literal interpretation? David91 14:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that interpretation is that under the CMA, the person with the power to "authorize" the modification of the contents of the computer is the owner of the computer. Clearly no-one's going to press charges against themselves for cracking their own computers! If the crack is installed on a computer without the knowledge or permission of the computer's owner, then an offence is committed under the CMA. Breaking technological protection measures is banned in the UK --- just not under the CMA. Flagboy 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You must realize, David91, that under your reading of the CMA it would be illegal to remove viruses from one's own computer. You're saying that an offence is committed if someone uses data in a way that the person who fixed the data did not authorize, even if you own the medium on which the data resides (i.e. modifying content on a read-only disk that you have bought). In the same way, removing a virus modifies data on a computer in a way that the person who put the data there (i.e. the virus writer) presumably did not authorize. I would be most surprised and concerned if the CMA were to be read that way. Flagboy 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Flagboy, I hope you will forgive me if I set out all the relevant parts of the CMA so that you can understand the issues. 3.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing—

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

(3) The intent need not be directed at—

(a) any particular computer;

(b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.

(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

Let us work through the wording of the offence. There must be an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer". So, at first sight, anything stored on a computer is protected including a program package or a data file representing music, visual media, etc. But, to commit the offence, there must be intent and knowledge. For our purposes, see 3(2)(c) and 3(4) because the intention would be to impair the operation of "any program", i.e. to evade the operation of any encoded restriction on use, and the knowledge would be that the person who licensed the use of the program would not authorise this modification. To understand this conclusion, you have to apply s17: 17.—(1) The following provisions of this section apply for the interpretation of this Act.

(2) A person secures access to any program or data held in a computer if by causing a computer to perform any function he—

(a) alters or erases the program or data;

(b) copies or moves it to any storage medium other than that in which it is held or to a different location in the storage medium in which it is held;

(c) uses it; or

(d) has it output from the computer in which it is held (whether by having it displayed or in any other manner);

and references to access to a program or data (and to an intent to secure such access) shall be read accordingly.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above a person uses a program if the function he causes the computer to perform—

(a) causes the program to be executed; or

(b) is itself a function of the program.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) above—

(a) a program is output if the instructions of which it consists are output; and

(b) the form in which any such instructions or any other data is output (and in particular whether or not it represents a form in which, in the case of instructions, they are capable of being executed or, in the case of data, it is capable of being processed by a computer) is immaterial.

(5) Access of any kind by any person to any program or data held in a computer is unauthorised if—

(a) he is not himself entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data; and

(b) he does not have consent to access by him of the kind in question to the program or data from any person who is so entitled.

(6) References to any program or data held in a computer include references to any program or data held in any removable storage medium which is for the time being in the computer; and a computer is to be regarded as containing any program or data held in any such medium.

(7) A modification of the contents of any computer takes place if, by the operation of any function of the computer concerned or any other computer—

(a) any program or data held in the computer concerned is altered or erased; or

(b) any program or data is added to its contents;

and any act which contributes towards causing such a modification shall be regarded as causing it.

(8) Such a modification is unauthorised if—

(a) the person whose act causes it is not himself entitled to determine whether the modification should be made; and

(b) he does not have consent to the modification from any person who is so entitled.

Let us start with s17(6) because it does not matter where the program or data starts off. Then apply ss17(2)(a) and s17(7): because the crack has altered or added code to the program or data, and one of the possible results would be under s17(2)(b) that you have moved the material to a different location where either program or data might now be used without restriction (s17(2)(c) simply refers to use but that has to be read subject to s17(3) which refers to causing a program to execute, i.e. you cracked an access prohibition). If you made an unauthorised transfer to an MP3 player, see s17(2)(d). The test of lack of authority as contained in s17(5) is one of entitlement. You know all those long licence agreements that you do not read: well they are written by the people with the authority in law to control your access to what you purchased or acquired lawfully (if you got this far one the assumption that illegal acquisition might somehow put you in a privileged position, think again). And s17(8) confirms that you will be unauthorised if you are not the one in law who can determine whether the modification should be made and you know that the one who is so entitled would not consent. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings. Incidentally, I agree any music, games or video CD that writes code to your own PC's root which modifies the OS or any application without the owner's authority would commit the offence, but persuading the CPS to prosecute would be an uphill task. David91 06:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Conforming to a Higher Standard

I guess I understand why this page is locked but there are some sections, notably the section with the pro-warez arguments, that could seriously conform to much higher higher standards of English. I don't know if this has ever been suggested, but could there be people whose editing privileges were limited to fixing issues of poor grammar and unclear writing? I suspect that upwards of 95% of my edits on Wikipedia consist of fixing small issues such as these and I would be willing to agree to only make that kind of edits (as opposed to editing actual content). I suspect there may be others out there like me. Obviously this system would have to be based on trust so if someone was making lots of biased or content-based edits, they would lose their special editorship.

The point is these people would be allow to edit content-protected pages and then even when pages content was static the articles would be able to continue to progress towards a higher standard of English.

Oh, and also it would be pretty keen if someone could neaten up the English in that section and elsewhere in this article. - Mswer 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

State more specific problems next time and we'll get right to it :)  ALKIVAR™ 05:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Change Topsite links to point towards Topsite_(warez) instead the disambiguation page.

S33k3r 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

changing piracy to infringement

Changing piracy to copyright infringement doesn't work, they're not entirely interchangable concepts. If 'piracy' isn't felt to be appropriate - and you should get consensus on this, I and others feel it is, and the article has been fine like this so far - the article needs more changing than a simple replacement of the words. User:Alkivar has said something similar to this on User:For great justice.'s talk page, too. As such, reverting again. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Piracy is not the right word, it is a very loaded POV term. One that is promoted by the media content industry with the purpose of equating copyright infringement with violent theft, and by some infringers, who like the romantic swashbuckling overtones. Others, like the FSF object to the term, because it does not describe the action. What is being talked about here is unauthorised distribution of copyright material. That is the correct term for it, piracy is loaded and POV. For great justice. 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly arguing piracy is a neutral term, I'm just saying that "copyright infringement" isn't appropriate, in my opinion ('piracy' here and elsewhere refers to actions which don't necessarily fall under that, as Alkivar mentioned somewhat), and that I think you'll have a hard time finding a more appropriate word/phrase which you can just arbitarily replace the existing sections with. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying they're not the same thing. What's the difference? Can you define them? I'm not sure you're using the same definitions as the rest of the world. For great justice. 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From Google's define feature for 'piracy' .. "The unauthorised duplication and/or use and distribution of a software program", "Unauthorized decryption and distribution of protected content in any medium, including audio, video, and text", "The copying, and/or distribution of software without the permission of the writer or publisher" are a few demonstrating definitions which aren't completely compatible with "copyright infringement".

I'm mostly concerned about the fact that "copyright infringement" implies that you're infringing copyright law, which might not be the case, depending on the country you're in and the laws you apply, and that cracking stuff is also often referred to as piracy. Alkivar only referred to the first issue there, but that means I'm at least not being completely crazy here. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cracking without distribution is not refered to as piracy, otherwise, it seems that your definition of piracy is unauthorised distribution of copyright content? For great justice. 03:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cracking software and then using it on multiple machines in violation of the license is generally considered piracy, as far as I can tell - which I wouldn't consider "distribution", since it's still in your possession, essentially - as mentioned in the "copying/duplication" bits of definitions above. And two of the definitions above (and others elsewhere) mention unauthorised uses (eg, decryption) as piracy, although I'd be more iffy about those and they wouldn't seem to be relevant to the definition here..

And, in addition, off the top of my head without checking this, wouldn't people using a 'pirated' copy of some software generally be considered pirates (and their actions piracy), despite the fact they've done no actual duplication (well, unless you consider use to be duplication into RAM)? Certainly the media content industry try and push that meaning. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So you'd say it was unauthorised copying or distribution? And you agree that pirating is a POV term. Let's go for that? For great justice. 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course "piracy" is a term that can be interpreted in different ways: many pirate figures are awarded heroic qualities for defying the system and bringing the masses goods and services without paying excise duty or other taxes, and those who suffer loss will always wish to ascribe a pejorative meaning. So we have had pirate radio stations, pirates smuggle cigarettes and alcohol (sometimes with the collusion of the tobacco companies), etc. But, for better or worse, no matter what the context, the term defines the debate as to the real degree of legitimacy to be attributed to the behaviour. If you wish to conflate breach of copyright, licence, and contractual term both as civil and criminal acts, and add in distribution by all media with or without a commercial aim, suggest another neutral term. I am sad to say that copyright infringement does not hack it (as they say). David91 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What about unauthorised copying and / or distribution? The fact that pirate is widely used doesn't make it any less POV - the term is used by some sides of the debate, not others, and the term itself is part of the polemic. It would be like putting the main article of Inheritance tax under death tax. The latter may deserve an article as a piece of polemic, but is essentially POV. For great justice. 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit inelegant but it does begin to avoid the pitfalls. A Robin Hood cracker might make the code available for breaching anti-copy subroutines or point to sites where unauthorised copies are available for download. There are also distribution systems where multiple download sources are accessed for constituent elements (none of which are of use on their own) and then reconstruct into the whole by reference to a meta-copy. The difficulty is that once you abandon the use of the convenient term, you open a Pandora's Box of other questions. I agree with you that convenience should not be a reason for using any particular term, but the more complex you make any phrase and then substitute it for "piracy" throughout the article (because obviously, if "piracy " is inappropriate in one place, it is inappropriate throughout) then the more the reader is going to be faced with redundant verbiage. David91 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. What about a section early on discussing the controversy of the word, and then looking at each usage, and seeing which ones could be replaced with something specific and pithy, and which ones should stay? For great justice. 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was also going to suggest a short paragraph in the introductory section explaining the manipulation of the debate by the use of terms (not just "piracy") with a negative connotation. I am somewhat busy doing other things at present but, not that it actually means anything, you have my blessing to go right ahead and do it. David91 05:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool - I'll take a look when I get some time. For great justice. 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to this discussion - your idea sounds like a good improvement, I look forward to seeing some results (or perhaps if I find some time, helping out myself). --Fuzzie (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

David - I like your changes. ;) For great justice. 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway, I have a rare talent for making something very simple sound really obscure. :) David91 02:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)